Chairman G. Smith opened the meeting at 6:33 pm by asking for corrections to the October 17, 2005 ZBA minutes.

Transcription

1 Town of Bolton ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Monday, November 13, 2005 SEQR = State Environmental Quality Review PB = (Town of Bolton) Planning Board WCPB = Warren County Planning Board APA = Adirondack Park Agency 6:30 p.m. LGPC = Lake George Park Commission DEC = Dept of Environmental Conservation - Present: Chairman Greg Smith, Tony DePace, Kam Hoopes, Meredith McComb, Tom McGurl Jr., Michael Murray, Bill Pfau, Zoning Administrator Pam Kenyon, Town Counsel Michael Muller Absent: None Chairman G. Smith opened the meeting at 6:33 pm by asking for corrections to the October 17, 2005 ZBA minutes. M. McComb said on page 12, the last line of the last paragraph should read, M. McComb said she disagrees, because she measured it and the deck is 12. K. Hoopes said on pages 1 through 3, Charles Ginkis is misspelled should be read Charles Giknis throughout. T. McGurl Jr. said on page 10, paragraph 6, number (5) should read (5) he likes that the applicant is not pushing back into the woods, but using the lot and what is already there to speak of. Motion by M. McComb to approve the October 17, 2005 minutes as amended. Seconded by M. Murray. All in favor. Motion carried. 1) V05-54 BYERS, STEPHEN. Represented by Eugene Baker. To allow a retaining wall to remain, seeks area variance for deficient setbacks: 1) shoreline: 75 is required, a) 0 is proposed from the mean high water mark of Lake George; and b) 30 is proposed from the Trout Pond as described on the site plan; and 2) side: 15 is required, 0 is proposed. Section , Block 1, Lot 17, Zone RCM1.3. Property location: 12 Braley Point. SUBJECT TO APA REVIEW. The WCPB recommended denial based on the fact that the wall does not appear to be compatible, the wall will have negative impact on Lake George with stormwater, erosion, adjacent neighbors due to stormwater and erosion, as well as zebra mussel habitat. This item was tabled at the September meeting pending additional information. G. Smith said that this application has been withdrawn. M. McCombs asked if further ZBA discussion on this matter is warranted even though the applicant withdrew his application, since the applicant is in violation per previous ZBA ruling and Supreme Court ruling. G. Smith said (1) that the ZBA can t deliberate on what it is or isn t, (2) the applicant is allowed to withdraw and (3) if nothing happens and the applicant doesn t apply next month, something will go from there. Counsel said

2 (1) that in answer to M. McComb s question, of course he has said that in the past, if the application is still pending (PAM this is verbatim now please let me know if it is ok or needs any additional clarification) and (2) he spoke with Mark Schachner and he withdrew it so there is nothing pending here. M. McComb asked if it is correct that the applicant is allowed to simply say it is no longer jurisdictional and the ZBA is not permitted to examine it. Counsel answered by saying (1) that would be a characterization that is a possibility, (2) he thinks what is happening is that this application for a set-back variance is withdrawn as the applicant is permitted to do and it is true that this is would be the second time this applicant would present this same sort of request, (3) next stop would be that the Zoning Administrator is supposed to go out there and determine if it is a retaining wall that is subject to the jurisdiction of the Zoning Code, (4 ) what the Zoning Administrator determines is then an interpretation which procedurally someone may wish to take appeal from that interpretation and the ZBA will then tell us if the Zoning Administrator s determination stands or it does not stand and (5) that would be the path that we re headed for, but in this instance, there is no application for a setback variance as of 1:00 pm today. M. McComb said (1) she is looking at a letter from Mark Schachner saying that substantial material has been removed with substantial changes made and this is the same thing that was litigated and (2) as far as she is concerned, the ZBA has bent over backwards again and again and again on this project, winter is coming, the court ruled that the notion that you can have a crummy retaining wall, an ill-suited retaining wall, an inefficient retaining wall and it is no longer a retaining wall is gibberish. K. Hoopes asked if M. McComb went to the site to see the present retaining wall and she replied by saying (1) yes, she has, (2) she saw the mulch tumbling down onto the Markis property and (3) she saw erosion breaks in the level from this big high thing with trees on top of it coming down. B. Pfau said that he doesn t think it is the ZBA s job to sit and debate and determine whether this wall is jurisdictional or not. G. Smith said that the Zoning Administrator will take care of it and if it needs to be in front of the ZBA it will be. M. McComb said that (1) she thought Zoning Administrator P. Kenyon ruled on this a long time ago and (2) she feels the ZBA should support P. Kenyon in her ruling. Counsel responded by saying that (1) P. Kenyon did rule on it and (2) unfortunately he feels they will be going down a path that he feels they have gone down before, (3) with no application pending and clearly Mr. Byers as an applicant controls his application. M. McComb said (1) the last application that was pending that the ZBA was allowed to rule on the ZBA did rule on and (2) Mr. Byers sued and appealed that ruling and lost, at which point he comes into violation. G. Smith said that (1) Mr. Byers feels he is not in violation anymore, (2) Zoning Administrator P. Kenyon will make a determination and (3) after the Zoning Administrator makes a determination, Mr. Byers will be back before the ZBA if need be.

3 2) V05-59 DePACE, ANTHONY & GAIL. To alter pre-existing non-conforming guest cottage/garage and convert the guest cottage into a single-family dwelling, seek area variance for 1) a deficient front yard setback: 50 is required from the edge of the rightof-way from Braley Point Road, 5 is proposed; 2) a deficient shoreline setback: 75 is required from the stream, 13 is proposed; 3) deficient density: 2.6 acres required, 2.43 acres exist and is proposed; and 4) to alter a pre-existing non-conforming structure in accordance with Section A. Section , Block 1, Lot 11.2, Zone RCM1.3. Property location: 30 Braley Point Road. SUBJECT TO WCPB & APA REVIEW. Approval was granted on 9/19/05. Clarification is needed as it pertains to the pre-existing non-conforming aspect of this project. Note: T. DePace recused himself from the ZBA for this item. Tony DePace said that (1) he is here just to verify the pre-existing portion of the barn/cottage, (2) he handed out several letters to the ZBA members and to Counsel to that effect. K. Hoopes said that he feels this helps and the materials presented can be entered into record as sufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition of this property. Correspondence: Counsel read the following correspondence into the record. Letter from Alexander Keeler confirmed that in 1998 there was a garage and a rustic sleeping accommodation on the second floor as well as a bathroom facility/toilet on the ground floor. Letter from Ruben Ellsworth stating that in 1998 he excavated the property, Horace Baker Construction was renovating a barn/cottage and he and his employees used the bathroom facilities in the barn/cottage. Letter from David Greene stating that he observed sleeping accommodations provided in the loft of the attached barn when he worked for the Streevers and the barn was located on the northwest corner of the former Streever plot. Letter from Edward English verifying that prior to the DePaces purchasing the property, when the property was for sale he looked into it and can verify that the barn/cottage had a sleeping area upstairs and a bathroom downstairs. Letter from Horace O. Baker stating that regarding the DePace barn/building, in 1998 he replaced wood and dirt floor on ground level to concrete, sheet rocked the second floor, installed two bathrooms to existing sewer pipe and he saw cots and mattresses on the second floor of the said building. Letter from Henry Caldwell stating that regarding Bill Streever s accessory structure, he visited the structure on several occasions while Bill Streever lived on the property and Bill Streever used the building for storage, but also there were beds, a privacy curtain and

4 running water in the building, which he now would say may have been used as someone as a place for living. Letter from Rolf O. Ronning on behalf of Bell Point Realty regarding the preexisting status of the carriage house/garage owned by DePace, stating that when he first got involved with the property in the mid-1990 s he had been shown the entire property and at that time the carriage house/garage had an upstairs with at least one set of bunk beds, two other cot-like beds and an enlarged unfinished open room and downstairs there was either a ½ bath or ¾ bath with a sink and a toilet. At the time of the DePaces purchase, the bed/cots were still upstairs and the bathroom was still functional. From the public, Bernard Marki, neighbor to the west, said that (1) he remembers that in 1998 there were only four structures (1 barn, 1 log garage, 1 log camp and 1 cottage) on the property as shown on the map submitted by Gail and Anthony DePace when they subdivided their property in 1998 and certified by D. Dickinson in October 1998, (2) sometime after that there was one house sold (shown as 1 log camp on the map) and there was 1 cottage left and 1 barn left, (3) at some point the cottage was removed and the DePaces built a new home there as a year-round residence, (4) somewhere later on the barn was turned into a guest cottage it had a dirt floor, you could see through the boards on the side there wouldn t have been any running water, because it would have froze, (5) he is not sure when the four bedrooms appeared, as he does not recall ever seeing them and there wasn t a kitchen up there and (6) he is wondering why this was converted into a pretty much year-round residence or guest house without any previous applications, inspections, certificates of occupancy or permits to do so. M. McComb replied by saying that (1) it seems to have progressed from putting some beds upstairs to running some pipes in and she is not sure at what point this has moved over into becoming how that makes this a separate single-family dwelling out of it, (2) she supported this plan at the last meeting, in large part, because the DePaces agreed they would not add further guest cottages to this property and that they are so close (within less than ½ acre) of being able to legally subdivide and put in two houses and two cottages on that land, (3) she knows it is an irregular way to go, but it does seem that there have been times in Bolton Landing where use has grown under the carpet. K. Hoopes said there has been a variance already granted and M. McComb replied by saying that (1) if the variance was granted on incomplete or inaccurate information then this is good to look at, (2) she realizes that there could be grounds for asking what the heck is going on and (3) she also asked why this applicant is just bringing his materials to tonight s meeting instead of passing them out to everyone in advance as she feels this is a drawback. G. Smith said (1) Streever had a barn there for the last 100 years, (2) there may have been cracks through the building or siding that is how Streever took care of his property, (3) Streever wouldn t have had running water in the winter, but would have drained it since he didn t live there in the winter, (4) there is a separate leachfield for this running water that is in this barn, (5) there are seven letters stating that all of this was pre-existing, there were beds and cots upstairs and there were curtains separating the rooms upstairs that s

5 the way it was and that s the way it is, (6) Tony and Gail DePace purchased the property and renovated the barn to work in and for storage they didn t need permits to renovate the barn, (7) the barn was already a guest cottage upstairs so to speak and (8) nobody has ever lived there year-round since the DePaces have owned it he has had a brother stay there from time to time and that is it. M. McComb asked if it is correct that there isn t a kitchen upstairs and G. Smith said (1) there is no kitchen up there, which is why Tony DePace came to the ZBA to get a variance to put a kitchen up there it is one open room with a couple of closet-type bedrooms up there nothing has been done to put living quarters upstairs, it is open rooms like cubby holes up there, (2) the point is to clarify from the seven letters presented that this is pre-existing and has been there it is not something the DePaces have decided to built themselves and start now, so everything the DePaces have done is legal and to the book and (3) the ZBA is just here to clarify for this application that from these seven different letters from individuals who have observed what is going on up there, that this has already been there pre-existing prior to the DePaces purchasing the property. M. McComb said that it made a big impression on her that the DePaces offered for the ZBA to put a condition that there be no further guest cottages for these residences. G. Smith said that the DePaces are better off leaving it as it is and possibly putting another structure on the property and using this as a guest cottage, because the DePaces only lack 3/10 of an acre in building it. M. McComb said that (1) there are trade-offs sometimes in zoning issues, (2) certainly it is a trade-off that this structure is very close to that stream, but it is not a side-by-side house on Lake George squeezing another property in there and (3) the DePaces made the offer of that compromise, which she thinks is a substantial compromise and given that it is still not, by the Zoning Administrator s determination, a guest cottage with a kitchen in it, the ZBA did consider the trade-off in granting the variance last month. Correspondence: P. Kenyon read a letter into the record from her to Tony DePace dated March 3, 2004 regarding an alleged violation stating that by her inspection she determined that since the guest cottage portion of the structure does not contain a kitchen it is not classified as an apartment, thus no violations exist. Correspondence: Counsel read the following correspondence into the record. Letter from John Tiger Jr. dated November 12, 2005 stating his fax (copy enclosed) was not acknowledged at the September 19, 2005 meeting regarding his concern with DePace application for a variance. Fax copy from John Tiger Jr. dated September 19, 2005 concerns with the (V05-95) DePace September 19, 2005 ZBA agenda item.

6 Counsel said the fax sent from Mr. Tiger had not been read into the record at the September 19, 2005 meeting and P. Kenyon said she doesn t have the letter from Mr. Tiger Jr. in the packet, so she never received the fax, which is why it wasn t read into the record at the September 2005 meeting. M. McComb referred to Mr. Tiger Jr. s fax and asked about Mr. Tiger s point regarding no permits or any conversion and how he said that P. Kenyon said that a person needs permits for a conversion. G. Smith said that Tony DePace didn t need a permit because there was no conversion made it was all pre-existing. Counsel said that (1) if it is pre-existing, and the ZBA has substantial correspondence that may persuade them that that is so, then he certainly feels that that explains the absence of permits, (2) if it is not pre-existing then the absence of permits tells that it was done without permission, but the ZBA would have to accept the notion that it was not preexisting, (3) P. Kenyon was not in attendance at the September 2005 meeting, he had never seen Mr. Tiger s letter, so there is a possibility that Code Enforcement Officer Mitzi Nittmann didn t receive it, but at the September 2005 meeting, he thought that every member of the ZBA including himself, accepted the notion presumptively that P. Kenyon had instructed that it was all pre-existing and all non-conforming he would accept it, (4) after the meeting, he came to learn through several Town Board members that there were inquiries made on this very issue and the question of how he, P. Kenyon and the ZBA could have accepted the notion that this is pre-existing and non-conforming, because that perhaps wasn t so he doesn t want to presume it isn t so and then he admitted that having accepted the notation saying it is all pre-existing and nonconforming, the fact-finding was hopped right over and it was accepted, (5) if there is some notion that they were presumptively wrong, then they better do it right and present an ample record which is in the best interest of the applicant and the ZBA, (6) get to the facts and then the exercise will be if the ZBA accepts that it was pre-existing and nonconforming or do they not. P. Kenyon asked when the structure was built and G. Smith said before P. Kenyon said she stands by her decision that this is pre-existing non-conforming and G. Smith said that he agrees. M. McComb said that (1) based on the letters, she is absolutely willing to go along with that, (2) she agrees that when she mentioned irregularities before it is that this is the only proposal before the ZBA that she can think of where there has been nothing in the packet in advance and the applicant has been given the option of just bringing their stuff to the meeting and (3) she thinks in the future it would be a good thing to not do that to have everything submitted ahead of time. G. Smith said that he didn t consider this a packet tonight and the ZBA is only here to justify that the applicant has seven letters verifying it is pre-existing it is not a variance application tonight. M. McComb said that (1) everybody else defends their project with their stuff submitted in advance, (2) she is not suggesting the ZBA deny it based on it, but she is making the point that a ZBA board member ought to be even more meticulous not less. P. Kenyon said that (1) she thinks she is pretty careful with making sure all ZBA members have everything two weeks prior, (2) had this been a new application the ZBA would have had the information two weeks prior, but this was not a new application but a clarification and

7 (3) it took the applicant time to get his information to get together for the ZBA, which he did and he submitted it to the ZBA. G. Smith said that is another reason Counsel read all the letters into the record, so everyone heard them loud and clear fair and square. B. Pfau said there is also written correspondence dated September 22, 2005 from the LGA also making a claim that the DePaces altered the barn structure into a threebedroom dwelling and accused the ZBA of cronyism asked if any LGA member was present to make a statement in defense to comments in the letter. From the public Kathy Bozony of the LGA said that (1) she is not accusing the ZBA, but asking the ZBA if there are two sets of rules, (2) one of the main emphasis in her letter is the fact that during the entire discussion there was hardly any mention of the fact that the single-family dwelling would be enlarged quite a bit and that it is 13 from the stream, (3) generally variances are granted for hardship for changing and enlarging buildings that are that close to a stream that runs into Lake George, (4) it definitely brings up a question and she is not the only person bringing up this question as to how quickly this was passed and (5) she knows all the ZBA members discussed it among themselves prior and decided that it was the better thing to do to create two single-family dwellings on this one piece of parcel. G. Smith said that the ZBA members did not discuss the matter other than publicly at the ZBA meeting nothing is discussed prior to the public meeting. M. Murray and several other ZBA members agreed. M. McComb said in Ms. Bozony s defense, there was a good deal of talk and she feels there was some discussion ahead of time. All other ZBA members said they had no knowledge of any discussion on this matter with or without the applicant prior to the public ZBA meeting and G. Smith asked M. McComb who the applicant discussed the matter with and she said it wasn t her. Kathy Bozony from the LGA (1) said regardless, the main thing that it was passed as two single-family dwellings, she knows the acreage is just below what would have been possible to divide this family dwelling and (2) asked if there is any guarantee that they will not be divided in the future then guest cottages put on. M. McComb said yes, there was a condition that there would not be further guest cottages, which was accepted as no problem by the DePaces. Kathy Bozony asked what would happen if the parcel was divided 10 or 20 years in the future. G. Smith answered by saying that (1) they would have to come before the ZBA to do that and (2) the reason the ZBA is here tonight is to clarify if this was indeed pre-existing. P. Kenyon said she stands by her position. M. McComb posed the question that if there isn t any residence there now, is there a septic system for it (the barn)and what happens with the septic on that (the barn)? Tony DePace said that (1) regarding the septic system on the barn, the existing septic system

8 will be no longer it will be an added-on septic system to his house, so it will be run further away from the brook than it is now and (3) he would really appreciate if the ZBA could stay focused on tonight s agenda as he has already had his variances. M. McComb said that (1) these people are all questioning whether Tony DePace s variances were granted under a lack of information or false information and (2) she thinks that based on the material Tony DePace presented, the variances were granted appropriately on appropriate information, but people have the right to ask the question and the ZBA has asked it. Tony DePace said that he agrees with M. McComb that people have the right to ask the question, but it has already been discussed and if people need to review it again they can read the minutes. Counsel said (1) if the ZBA stays on task, this whole proceeding on the DePace application has to do with something that eventually by resolution needs to be determined factually, which is why the ZBA is here, (2) it is persuasive that the Zoning Administrator says she looked at it, she stands by her facts and her personal inspection indicates that it is pre-existing and non-conforming but that is evidence, as is everything that Mr. Marki may have said, the applicant may have said and submitted, (3) now the ZBA members are the masters of figuring out what is the fact and the fact is either that this does constitute and satisfy the requirements for pre-existing or it does not and (4) it would be helpful if the ZBA could find some rational basis in its decision and make some finding based upon the evidence that appears before it. Now, upon motion duly made by Meredith McComb and seconded by Mike Murray, it is resolved that the ZBA does hereby determine that the guest cottage/garage is considered pre-existing, non-conforming. Therefore they stand by their 9/19/05 ruling. Tony DePace recused himself. All others in favor. Motion carried. 3) V05-61 CHILDRESS, JAMES & BARBARA. Represented by Richard Huck. To alter pre-existing non-conforming single family dwelling, seek area variance for 1) Deficient front yard setback: 30 ft. is required, 23 ft. is proposed; 2) deficient rear yard setback: 15 ft. is required, 8 ft. is proposed; and 3) to alter a non-conforming structure in accordance with Section A. Section , Block 1, Lot 29. Zone RCH5000. Property Location: 200 Sunrise Shores Loop. SUBJECT TO WCPB REVIEW. Note: T. McGurl Jr. recused himself from the ZBA for this item as he may be doing some work on this cottage if approved. Richard Huck, representing James and Barbara Childress, gave an overview by saying that the Childress have a summer cottage in Sunrise Shores and they would like to add a second bathroom and a walk-in closet on to their cottage and then showed the proposed project on the map. M. McComb asked if Sunrise Shores has a great leachfield out of the way and Richard Huck answered by saying no, each has a separate leachfield and some have put in their own pump stations.

9 B. Pfau asked about the front and rear-yard setbacks and Richard Huck pointed them out on the map. P. Kenyon said the applicant actually has two front yards and the addition is actually going on the side. B. Pfau asked if the existing building is 23 and P. Kenyon said yes. G. Smith said he sees the Association unanimously approved the proposed project and Richard Huck said that is correct. M. McComb asked if this is Blue Heron Cottage and Richard Huck said yes. M. McComb said this seems to be the sort of project that the ZBA was created to facilitate. G. Smith said that the applicants really don t have anywhere else to go other then the proposed side. K. Hoopes said that they are just filling in the nook. Richard Huck said that the back door will stay where it is on the kitchen and the proposal is to extend the roof over it to cover the entrance and M. Murray replied by saying that makes sense. M. McComb said it seems to be a minimal solution to the applicants needs and K. Hoopes said that for a tiny addition the applicants are getting a tiny bathroom and a walk-in closet. No correspondence. No public in attendance. No County impact. P. Kenyon said this is definitely a pre-existing non-conforming structure, as this house was built in G. Smith said it is pretty cut and dry and he sees no other solution. RESOLUTION The Zoning Board of Appeals received an application from (V05-61) James & Barbara Childress for an area variance as described above. And, due notice of the public hearing of the ZBA at which time the application was to be considered having been given and the application having been referred to the Warren County Planning Board; and, whereas the Warren County Planning Board determined that there was no County impact; and, after reviewing the application and supporting documents of the same, and there being no public comment regarding the application; this Board makes the following findings of fact:

10 The application of the applicant is as described in Item #3 of the agenda. The Board makes the following conclusions of law: 1) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance; 2) There would be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, and there would be no detriment created to nearby property owners by the granting of this variance, it is very much in line with other properties in the Association and the Association unanimously agrees that it should be approved; 3) The requested variance is not substantial, it is minimal, there are no additional bedrooms and it gives the applicants a little more living space, but does not particularly increase the intensity of use of the property; 4) The request will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district by itself, in large part because it is so minimal; 5) The alleged difficulty is self-created, but the benefit to the applicant outweighs other considerations. The benefit to the applicant is outweighed by the potential detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Now, upon motion duly made by Meredith McComb and seconded by Mike Murray, it is resolved that the ZBA does hereby approve the variance request as presented. Tom McGurl recused himself. All others in favor. Motion carried. 4) V05-62 EMANUELE, JOSEPH. To alter existing single-family dwelling, seeks Area Variance for 1.) Deficient front yard setback; 30 ft. is required, 12 ft. is proposed. 2.) Deficient rear yard setback; 15 ft. is required,.81ft. is proposed. 3.) To alter a preexisting non-conforming structure in accordance with Section A. Section , Block 3, Lot 4, Zone GB5000. Property Location: 26 Hondah Loop. SUBJECT TO WCPB REVIEW. This item was tabled at the October meeting pending additional information. The WCPB determined no county impact. Joseph Emanuele said they took the ZBA s advice and tried to make this plan more pleasing to the eye. G. Smith asked if the Association approved this plan and Marilyn Emanuele said the neighbor who had concerns has seen the plan and feels this plan is an improvement. K. Hoopes said that (1) in comparison to the Emanueles last application, this proposal is a much tinier and handsomer approach which will require a lot less work and (2) it will

11 make a better end result and he is all for it. Several ZBA members agreed that this plan is much better than the Emanueles last application. Correspondence: Counsel read the following correspondence into the record. Letter from Marilyn Emanuele, President of the Hondah Cottage Association stating that the Association does not dictate what homeowners have to do, they are leaving it up to the ZBA. No public in attendance. No County impact. M. McComb asked if the Emanueles would be living in the home in the winter along with their son and Marilyn Emanuele said no, and said their son is in the process of purchasing his own home. G. Smith asked if the Emanueles would be back in the near future for another variance and Marilyn Emanuele said no, hopefully not. M. McComb said that (1) it is a big expansion to this place in comparison to a lot of the places down there, (2) this looks better than what is there now, but the notion of adding a second family to the property would be a consideration and (3) if the situation is temporary and Joseph and Marilyn Emanuele are not living there, then she wonders about the need for it, but also knows that the Emanueles have done a lot of work already. Marilyn Emanuele said that they aren t actually adding anything, but are they are changing the roof lines. G. Smith said that the Emanueles are making it more aesthetic looking and M. Murray said that it is sensible K. Hoopes said the ZBA already granted the original variance, but somehow the original roof line slipped by the ZBA. RESOLUTION The Zoning Board of Appeals received an application from (V05-62) Joseph Emanuele for an area variance as described above. And, due notice of the public hearing of the ZBA at which time the application was to be considered having been given and the application having been referred to the Warren County Planning Board; and, whereas the Warren County Planning Board determined that there was no County impact; and, after reviewing the application and supporting documents of the same, and there being no public comment regarding the application;

12 this Board makes the following findings of fact: The application of the applicant is as described in Item #4 of the agenda. The Board makes the following conclusions of law: 1) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance; 2) There would be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, and there would be no detriment created to nearby property owners by the granting of this variance, but it will be an improvement; 3) The requested variance is not substantial, in fact they are cutting back on the visual impact; 4) The request will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district by itself; 5) The alleged difficulty is self-created, but it is self-corrected. The benefit to the applicant is outweighed by the potential detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Now, upon motion duly made by Kam Hoopes and seconded by Tony DePace, it is resolved that the ZBA does hereby approve the variance request as presented. All in favor. Motion carried. 5) V05-67 SCHWAB, BERNARD. To alter pre-existing non-conforming single family dwelling, seeks area variance for 1) deficient front yard setback; 75 ft. is required, from the edge of the right-of-way, 20 ft. is proposed. 2) to alter a non-conforming structure in accordance with section A. Section , Block 1, Lot 10. Zone RL3. Property Location: 948 Trout Lake Rd. SUBJECT TO WCPB REVIEW. *This item was tabled until the December 19th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, as no one was present to present the application. 6) V05-68 MacEWAN, ROBERT & DEBORAH. Represented by Mark Rehm, Esq. Seek to amend previously approved variance V05-55 to demolish existing structure and construct a 4-unit townhouse complex. Additional Variances required: 1) A deficient rear yard setback; 15 ft. is required, 7.3 ft. is proposed (10 ft. originally approved), and 2) Lot coverage 40% is allowed, 59% is proposed for 2 & 3. Section , Block 1, Lot 74. Zone GB5000. Property location: 22 Goodman Avenue, formerly known as Wilson s Laundry. SUBJECT TO WCPB REVIEW.

13 Mark Rehm, Esq., representing Robert and Deborah MacEwan, gave an overview and aid that (1) they are proposing 7.3 feet of relief instead of 10 feet, (2) they are trying to address the ZBA s concerns with this plan and (3) they propose a subdivision and have submitted an application for that. Atty. Rehm then reviewed the criteria and provided his thoughts on how he feels the proposal applies to the criteria. M. McComb asked for details on the Homeowner s Association and Atty. Rehm said that it would be a not-for-profit Homeowner s Association, which will be responsible for the maintenance of the four homes as well as the surrounding property, so it looks good over time. B. Pfau asked if the original proposal was that it would all stay as one commercial lot and then rent the units and Atty. Rehm answered by saying no, that wasn t the intention, but when the applicants originally went for their applications, in thinking after presenting to the ZBA in September, they needed to accomplish the subdivision so each individual town-home could be sold off individually it was an oversight on the applicants behalf. M. McComb said the ZBA approved it. Atty. Rehm said that there were approved variances for the building itself and the 0 lot line between the individual town-homes. B. Pfau said but that did not include individual lots at that time and Atty. Rehm said that is correct. B. Pfau asked if this application has been before the PB and Atty. Rehm answered by saying (1) yes they have been before the PB and (2) there were some very minimal items of the project itself that needed to be addressed as well as for the approval of a four-lot subdivision. B. Pfau asked what the plans are for the property if the subdivision doesn t go through and Atty. Rehm said they have not thought about that at this point in time. K. Hoopes asked if the plan for subdivision came out of legal research after the applicants were before the PB and Atty. Rehm said that in preparing for the most recent PB meeting they found they wanted subdivision approval, but they didn t have a plot plan for subdivision approval, so that application had been made as quickly after as they could. K. Hoopes asked if it is correct that the applicants met with the PB knowing that they were going to have to subdivide this later and Atty. Rehm said that is correct. M. McComb said that (1) her vote against this the first time was not against the project, but against the speed with which a new concept for Bolton Landing was being embraced with what she thought was a minimal inquiry into its impact and whether it was really the best plan for this and (2) she sees and hears that there are some provisions for fences and asked for their proposed location. Atty. Rehm said that (1) there are proposed privacy fences that the PB asked to be included and (2) the PB has their application, which shows privacy fences along the concrete pads on the southeasterly end of the lot, which the PB thought would look nice and give each individual owner privacy from one another.

14 M. McComb asked if there is a corridor between the privacy fences for the concrete pads and the property line to the east of it. Atty. Rehm said yes, the privacy fences don t go right to the lot line there is going to be a corridor. M. McComb asked if there would be a space for people to get through there and Atty. Rehm said yes, sure. G. Smith asked what else the PB suggested and Atty. Rehm answered by saying that (1) the PB suggested the privacy fences, (2) there had been talk about sidewalks being added to the property that is not conclusive as that is something new for the Town of Bolton and there is no plan for it, (3) the overall plan was generally well-received by the PB and (4) there was also some indication that the PB wanted some more definite answers as to the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions which has been provided to both the ZBA and the PB. G. Smith asked if the restrictions will be part of the deed of transfer of ownership to this property which the homeowners will have to abide by and Atty. Rehm said yes, when they propose this to the PB it will be a condition and it will likely be on the map to be filed in the County center. G. Smith said he does like the restrictions and he does feel that they should be a condition of transfer of ownership to each individual owner and Atty. Rehm said he and the applicants agree. B. Pfau asked if the PB was aware when the applicants were in front of them last month of the applicants plans to subdivide the lot into four properties and Atty. Rehm said he can t recall the answer to that. Counsel said (1) he thought the plan was developing as Atty. Rehm was presenting it and (2) the end result he (Counsel) left with was that while they may have started out not conceptually thinking these were undersized lots with individual ownership, the applicants came out of that meeting thinking there was a need to get approval for the undersized lots that would be under individual ownership, (3) then he (Counsel) thinks one of the PB members asked for the applicant to put a split the break in the ridge, so all of the sudden that which the applicant acquired at the ZBA for setbacks is slightly out of kilter and (4) then the PB embarked on a sidewalk discussion. M. McComb said that she understood there was also some discussion on if every unit should be maxed and have the same number of bedrooms in it and that maybe some should be a smaller number of bedrooms to minimize the impact. Counsel said that is true, as the units were not getting smaller, but the impacts inside were less intensive. K. Hoopes said that (1) the ZBA granted this variance after much discussion and (2) the only change he sees here besides the fact that they are speaking of individual lots and individual townhouses is the oversight that is 2.7 setback and 0.1 over the setback line, which would be the only change that would alter the numbers that the ZBA agreed to two months ago. Atty. Rehm said that is correct. K. Hoopes said that (1) essentially the ZBA is just speaking today on the possibility of adding all these other variances which would have been the same there are no other encroachments and (2) he doesn t see any reason why the ZBA can t continue. M.

15 Murray noted that the ZBA also agreed to give the applicants the 0 setback between the units so each apartment could be separate and not in violation. M. McComb said that (1) K. Hoopes is absolutely right, (2) she feels this is a unique situation because there was a laundry here and that is a hugely impactful use in a residential area, (3) on the other hand it is worth spending a little time, from her reading of the Master Plan it does not say what the Town wants is more housing regardless, (4) there is a sense that the Town could use more housing for summer people doing jobs around here, but she doesn t see anything in the Master Plan that says the ZBA should ignore its limits, (5) it is great if this is a good plan for this, but she is concerned that the ZBA take note as of what is different about this project from every other lot in downtown Bolton Landing so the ZBA doesn t have everybody in Bolton Landing saying they don t have much space, but they would like to put in four separate residences. K. Hoopes said they already had this discussion. G. Smith said he likes the addition of Schedules A & B and M. McComb said that she agrees and she also thinks that the Homeowner s Association is a great idea. From the public, Fred Lethbridge Jr. said (1) he is concerned about the drainage, (2) he is concerned that if the property is wiped out that may lead to hazardous materials under it running into the brook, (3) he thinks the ZBA is making a huge step towards decommercialization of a very proper zone, (4) he thinks the property in question could be a beautiful property that could be commercial business for years and years to come, (5) when his father and Mr. Wilson built the structure in 1946, they had an extreme problem with how to get rid of the waste introduced from the laundry especially the very hot water, (6) there was always a lot of water coming from the laundry and leading to the brook, which may or may not have been the proper temperature and make-up to go into the brook and the lake and (7) they are taking the chance of building townhouses that in the end might never be built because of the hazardous area, materials, land and the filtration going into the brook. M. McComb said regarding Mr. Lethbridge s concerns that (1) there will be PB site plan review of this project, (2) she thinks there is a sense on the ZBA that this conversion will have a lower impact on water usage and water quality than the existing laundry and (3) she thinks that if it turns out there is a toxic problem the PB will be addressing that. G. Smith said if there was a toxic problem then he believes that soil would have to be removed and new soil brought in to make it okay for building on top of. No correspondence. No County impact. RESOLUTION The Zoning Board of Appeals received an application from (V05-68) Robert & Deborah MacEwan to amend a previously approved variance (V05-55) as described above.

16 And, due notice of the public hearing of the ZBA at which time the application was to be considered having been given and the application having been referred to the Warren County Planning Board; and, whereas the Warren County Planning Board determined that there was no County impact; and, after reviewing the application and supporting documents of the same, and after public comment being heard regarding the application; this Board makes the following findings of fact: The application of the applicant is as described in Item #6 of the agenda. The Board makes the following conclusions of law: 1) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance; 2) There would be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, and there would be no detriment created to nearby property owners by the granting of this variance, it is probably going to be an improvement to the neighbors; 3) The requested variance is not substantial, again, the ZBA has already granted the variance and the only material change is a 2.7 over the setback line adjustment to the north and a 0.1 over the setback line adjustment to the northeast; 4) The request will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district by itself, there is nothing established here that this is changing anything they haven t reviewed since September; 5) The alleged difficulty is not self-created, this is a matter of legal preference. The benefit to the applicant is outweighed by the potential detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Now, upon motion duly made by Kam Hoopes and seconded by Tom McGurl, it is resolved that the ZBA does hereby approve the variance request as presented. All in favor. Motion carried. 7) V05-69 JORDON, PAUL & LORI. For the construction of a proposed right-of-way to access a proposed indoor maintenance facility on an adjacent parcel, seek area variance for deficient front yard setbacks 50 ft. is required, 5 ft. is proposed from existing garage and 25 ft. is proposed from proposed indoor boat maintenance facility. Section , Block 1, Lots 80 & 81. Zone RL3. Property Location: 640 & 624 Federal Hill Rd. SUBJECT TO WCPB REVIEW.

17 Lori Jordon gave an overview, said that they were in front of the WCPB and there was no County impact and showed the proposed plan on the map. G. Smith said that (1) his understanding is that the applicant s have looked rigorously for months for a piece of property to build this maintenance facility on without breaking the bank with all their life savings and (2) nothing was really available and anything the applicants did find wasn t as good a piece of property as the proposed location. B. Pfau asked if the it is two separate building lots and Lori Jordon answered by saying yes, but the lot listed under her in-laws is a lot that she and Paul Jordon have a warranty deed where the property was transferred to them almost three years ago, but her in-laws have a life estate and that is why it is under their name. B. Pfau asked if it will remain two separate pieces of property and Lori Jordon said for now yes. G. Smith said technically speaking Lori and Paul Jordon own both parcels and Lori Jordon said that is correct. B. Pfau asked for clarification on the variances being sought and P. Kenyon said the applicants are seeking a front-yard variance because to access the boat maintenance facility the applicants have to use the existing driveway to the house and because the driveway accesses two different parcels it is considered to be a front-yard setback. M. McComb asked if this was all one parcel there would be no problem and P. Kenyon said yes, that is correct it is kind of silly the applicants are here, but legally it is required. G. Smith said (1) it s a legal requirement, (2) he doesn t see the applicants selling the parcel since they will have their business on it and (3) the applicants have tried for a couple of years to find a piece of property to put this on and this turns out to be the best place for it. K. Hoopes said there are certain technicalities, because it is creating a new front-yard setback off the side-yard line. P. Kenyon said that is correct it meets the side-yard setback, but it doesn t meet the front-yard setback. From the public, Rod Owens, adjoining neighbor, said he has no objection to this project. M. McComb said that (1) she thinks life tenancies sometimes go on longer than people expected them to which can be a great thing and (2) she thinks this is something easily handled by the ZBA. No correspondence. No County impact. RESOLUTION

18 The Zoning Board of Appeals received an application from (V05-69) Paul & Lori Jordon to area variance as described above. And, due notice of the public hearing of the ZBA at which time the application was to be considered having been given and the application having been referred to the Warren County Planning Board; and, whereas the Warren County Planning Board determined that there was no County impact; and, after reviewing the application and supporting documents of the same, and after public comment being heard regarding the application; this Board makes the following findings of fact: The application of the applicant is as described in Item #7 of the agenda. The Board makes the following conclusions of law: 1) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance; 2) There would be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, and there would be no detriment created to nearby property owners by the granting of this variance; 3) The requested variance is not substantial, in fact the request hinges on a technicality; 4) The request will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district by itself; 5) The alleged difficulty is not self-created. The benefit to the applicant is outweighed by the potential detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Now, upon motion duly made by Kam Hoopes and seconded by Tony DePace, it is resolved that the ZBA does hereby approve the variance request as presented All in favor. Motion carried. 8) V05-70 McGURL, THOMAS. Represented by Jonathan Lapper. For a proposed 17 lot subdivision (SD05-25), seeks area variance for deficient shore frontage. 335 ft. is required as per section B4 of the zoning ordinance, 175 ft. is proposed. Section , Block 1, Lots Zones RCL3, LC45 & LC25. Property Location: 520 Trout Lake Rd., known as Twin Pines Resort. SUBJECT TO WCPB & APA REVIEW

19 Note: T. McGurl Jr. recused himself from the ZBA for this item, as the applicants are his parents. G. Smith (1) said that the ZBA is here to deal with the lakeshore frontage only not for the 17-lot subdivision and what is going on on the west side of the road and (2) asked all in attendance to try to keep it at that and that the PB would be dealing with the other issues. M. McComb said that she agrees that the only variance the applicants are here for is for the deficient shoreline, but at the same time, ignoring the 17-lot subdivision and the impact of that is something that she feels she needs to consider in whether or not to grant that shoreline. K. Hoopes said that only applies to it as much as those 17 lots affect the 175 of shoreline and M. McComb said (1) exactly, but she doesn t think it is just a matter of talking about 200 of shoreline and (2) if somebody has something to say she is willing to listen. K. Hoopes said the ZBA has some letters, but G. Smith was referring to items like tree-clearing, stormwater, erosion, etc. Atty. John Lapper, representing Tom McGurl Sr. and Marylou McGurl, gave an overview and said that (1) the McGurls approached him (Atty. Lapper) and surveyor Matt Steves for options of how to dispose of the property whether to sell it as a resort as it is now or to subdivide it, (2) they came up with this evening s proposal, which is a conforming subdivision with the exception of tonight s variance request, (3) the proposed subdivision would be 18 lots plus their home, so 19 single-family lots, which would be on the gently curved and sloping road up the mountain to provide really nice side lots, (4) they proposed a HOA lot which would be across the street from the lake access lot, which would minimize the impact of tonight s variance, because a lot of the HOA activities, like parking, would take place on the much larger lot across the street from the lake, (5) the current resort can accommodate up to 180 guests plus the applicants, so if it is 18 homes plus the applicants you won t have 10 people per house, so it will be less of an impact, (6) subdivision and stormwater drainage will be addressed before the PB, (7) there is over 900 of frontage on the lake that the applicants own, but what they built as the lodge building on the lake is what the applicants want to convert into their own home, (8) to avoid needing a variance, they could split the HOA property so there would be 175 on one side and 160 on the other side of that structure, so they could convey 2 lots to the HOA and not need a variance and (9) the reason they are here is the benefit of the applicant versus the burden on the neighborhood and there is no good reason or benefit to convey wetland property in two lots to the HOA just to say they conform to the code. K. Hoopes said that he would tend to agree with Atty. Lapper if he were trying to get the 335 any old which way, but he thinks the ZBA needs more than 175. Atty Lapper said the ZBA s job is to grant the minimum relief necessary and the applicants can expand it by another 50 to bring it to 225, but no closer in order for the applicants to have their privacy. K. Hoopes said it is going to have to come closer to the applicants house, because you can t go the other way.